Do we know what Msgr. Lynn's involvement was with any of the five who've been defrocked?

I don't know either, but if they did, Chaput sure is hangin' Lynn out to dry.

Things in Philly get curiouser and curiouser.

News, Cher

Then there's ALSO the possibility that the 10 (or whatever it was) cases that have yet to be completed might be the real smoking guns in all of this, and that their "investigations" might just have to take a little more time, say about a week longer than Msgr. Lynn's trial?

I guess on some level, I almost feel sorry for Chaput (imagine, me saying THAT!) But the simple truth is that the guy inherited a REALLY bad mess. Will be interesting to see how he deals with it all once the dust has settled. But for now, he's got a massive hill to climb as I see it, if his charge is to restore trust. If it's just to bury more bodies, then he falls into a long line of those who went before him...

I guess on some level, I almost feel sorry for Chaput (imagine, me saying THAT!) But the simple truth is that the guy inherited a REALLY bad mess. Will be interesting to see how he deals with it all once the dust has settled. But for now, he's got a massive hill to climb as I see it, if his charge is to restore trust. If it's just to bury more bodies, then he falls into a long line of those who went before him...

I can't say I share your sympathies. I see Chaput as a cold-blooded careerist who got this job with ambition and hard, double-dealing work. Let him sweat.

I guess on some level, I almost feel sorry for Chaput (imagine, me saying THAT!) But the simple truth is that the guy inherited a REALLY bad mess. Will be interesting to see how he deals with it all once the dust has settled. But for now, he's got a massive hill to climb as I see it, if his charge is to restore trust. If it's just to bury more bodies, then he falls into a long line of those who went before him...

I can't say I share your sympathies. I see Chaput as a cold-blooded careerist who got this job with ambition and hard, double-dealing work. Let him sweat.

Came across this article earlier today, and thought it interesting for what it says about Canon Law.

I say that because this is something I've been kinda screaming about now for years here. This author just happens to provide a key component. From the article:

While possible victims of childhood sexual abuse and other lay witnesses are asked to take an oath to “tell the truth, the whole truth etc.” during a canonical trial concerning the public good, an alleged priest-perpetrator is not. Canon 1728.2 says, “The accused is not bound to confess the delict [crime] nor can an oath be administered to the accused.”

Why in God's name would anyone believe that an individual like the criminally charged Brennan is necessarily telling the truth during a canonical trial when he is not even required to swear to the truth of his statements?

So here's the deal, as I see it. Under this little "quirk" of Canon Law (belieing a strong bias towards the clergy over the laity, as I see it), the bishops have long held that the church should be ABOVE secular law, and that the church's system of Canon Law is the proper place for abuse trials and such. Of course, over the past 10 years, this position has been trashed, and the bishops now, at least nominally, seem to accept that secular law can be used.

But when I speak of "double standards" at play within the hierarchy of the RCC, this is but one of many such examples. It seems to me that this particular double standard is actually codified. So I'd ask this: the bishops have had hundreds of years to change this clause, and have elected NOT to do so. Nor have I heard a SINGLE bishop even call for a change to this one. So the obvious question here is why not?

The more this whole scandal plays out, the more convinced I am that the RCC is going to need to start over, organizationally. What they have in place today simply can no longer be trusted. Even if none of the existing bishops put this clause in place, their silence suggests acquiescence. And I might mention that this clause now falls under Raymond Burke, who I believe could change it if he wanted to...

A man has testified he was in 8th grade in 1986 when he was chosen to play Jesus Christ, but he says before each rehearsal or show, Father Thomas Smith took him to a private room, told him to get naked, and then the priest would kneel before him and pin a loin cloth on the boy, often sticking him with the pins. Then, the boy was actually whipped during the play, suffering welts and cuts.

He says his siblings teased him at the dinner table. When he asked if he could quit, his parents said ‘no way.’

But, when he came forward in 2002, the witness says Monsignor William Lynn told him Father Smith was high in the church hierarchy, he was a good friend of his, this could have severe consequences for him and he probably just did it that way to be authentic.

The witness says he felt Monsignor Lynn was trying to talk him out of it.

I'm sure the jury won't fail to notice this as an attempt to choreograph the abuse as part of the liturgy, which is to say that the boy's failure to comply would amount to a sacrilege..

A man has testified he was in 8th grade in 1986 when he was chosen to play Jesus Christ, but he says before each rehearsal or show, Father Thomas Smith took him to a private room, told him to get naked, and then the priest would kneel before him and pin a loin cloth on the boy, often sticking him with the pins. Then, the boy was actually whipped during the play, suffering welts and cuts.

He says his siblings teased him at the dinner table. When he asked if he could quit, his parents said ‘no way.’

But, when he came forward in 2002, the witness says Monsignor William Lynn told him Father Smith was high in the church hierarchy, he was a good friend of his, this could have severe consequences for him and he probably just did it that way to be authentic.

The witness says he felt Monsignor Lynn was trying to talk him out of it.

I'm sure the jury won't fail to notice this as an attempt to choreograph the abuse as part of the liturgy, which is to say that the boy's failure to comply would amount to a sacrilege..

Cher:

Sadly, it may depend upon the number of jurors that are Catholic. It would be a good bet that the Catholics will give Lynn and the clergy a 'free ride' on this.

Sadly, it may depend upon the number of jurors that are Catholic. It would be a good bet that the Catholics will give Lynn and the clergy a 'free ride' on this.

Hewy,

I wouldn't bet on that. All five of the investigative reporters and their editor at the Boston Globe were Catholics, as was Judge Constance Sweeney, who deposed Cardinal Law in 2002. Sometimes a committed Catholic will be more grossed out by this stuff than any impartial observer.

Sadly, it may depend upon the number of jurors that are Catholic. It would be a good bet that the Catholics will give Lynn and the clergy a 'free ride' on this.

Hewy,

I wouldn't bet on that. All five of the investigative reporters and their editor at the Boston Globe were Catholics, as was Judge Constance Sweeney, who deposed Cardinal Law in 2002. Sometimes a committed Catholic will be more grossed out by this stuff than any impartial observer.

Cher, Hewy

I don't think we can overplay the importance of the nature of the defense that Lynn's attorneys will mount. They have a number of options here. What they cannot say is that abuse did not happen. I think the testimony, coupled with not one but TWO Grand Jury reports (and the fact that they had to issue a second one to get Rigali to act STILL blows my mind!) pretty much makes it clear that the abuse and all that sordid stuff happened. But the defense DOES have options.

If they can portray Lynn as a victim here, pretty much following the distinct and direct orders of his bishops, and somehow make him out to be a sympathetic character in the process, he has a chance. I'm guessing that's why the DA is pushing rather sordid stuff in the Prosecution's case: the more sordid, the harder it will be to paint Lynn as a sympethetic character.

At this point, I doubt anybody can listen to this stuff and not be angered, regardless of their religion. So that becomes the challenge facing the defense: to get a jury to set aside their anger/emotion, and to try to look at the picture the defense wants to paint.